Tuesday Afternoon Cigar

The filler of a CAO Brazillia seared as we reviewed the recent 'outrage' by Senator Obama over recent Rev. Wright comments.

So, the Sunday after 9-11 Rev. Wright said the following: "America's chickens are coming home to roost". In other words, America deserved the 9-11 attacks. Obama wasn't at church that day, and says if he had been, he "might" have walked out in protest.

In recent days, Rev. Wright has said "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability". That could be interpreted to mean: Obama is only saying what he says to get elected and that he doesn't have a core, moral basis for his opinions nor is he a leader capable of pushing an unpopular agenda through to completion. Of course, we at Ushanka.us know Obama has a core, hence the popular and sexy COMMIE OBAMA Rally Cap!

One question is asked by all, while another goes un-asked:

How are the latter, most recent comments worse than what was said (and known to be said) back in 2001?
But more telling, why didn't Obama go to church the Sunday after the most tragic and stunning attack on US soil in the history of the country?

To the first question, we suspect Obama's 'outrage' is in response to how recent the comments are, not the content. To the second question, we recall our church was standing room only that Sunday. Maybe we are wrong. Maybe Senator Obama does not have a core.

We might have to burn a second Brazilla to work this through....

Two early and choice commentaries by fellow bloggers:

Christopher Chantrill, American Thinker
Hugh Hewitt

Is Barack Obama a Communist?

Confederate Yankee leads the discussion at his blog.

We've already made our opinion known with the sexy, Soviet-Style COMMIE OBAMA Rally Cap!

Ushanka Tip to CY!

Newsbusters also makes the link.

MSM News

From EditorandPublisher.com:

The New York Times lost more than 150,000 copies on Sunday. Circulation on that day fell a whopping 9.2% to 1,476,400. The paper's daily circulation declined 3.8% to 1,077,256.
---
In Los Angeles, the Times lost more than 40,000 daily copies. Daily circulation there was down 5.1% to 773,884. Sunday declined 6.0% to 1,101,981.
---
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that daily circulation dropped 4.2% to 370,345, while Sunday dropped 3.0% to 424,603.
---
Daily and Sunday circulation at the Chicago Tribune both dropped 4.4% to 541,663 and 898,703, respectively.

Expect Ushanka.us to report losses soon if these trends continue. We'll then proceed to 'restructure' our operations and focus on our 'core' assets that 'differentiate' us from our MSM-bashing competitors. Karl will explain to shareholders (site members) that we are navigating the nadir, and a significant uptick is just around the corner in this cyclical blogging environment. In the meantime, ignore some of these suggested headlines for the MSM:

MSM Bloggers impacted by declining NYT subscriptions
Poll: Bloggers less likely to survive recent NYT-Nat'l Enquirer merger
NYT consolidates media power by dropping unneeded deliveries
Obama: "I still read the New York Times, right after church"

Great Minds Think Alike...

If we say so ourselves...

Green Monsters Love Leninade!

Found this on YouTube:

Karl's Weekend Reading

The big news this week was the Pennsylvania Primary. Obama's 10-point loss, despite spending nearly 3-to-1 over Hillary, and his embarrassing performance in the debate will keep the Dem in-fighting going for another month or more. Here are the four best quotes regarding Obama from this week's readings:

Lawrence Kudlow, from his Towhall.com article, Why Not Blame Obama?

But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Karl Rove, from his opinion piece in the WSJ, Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.

But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.

Too hot in the kitchen! That is our take on Obama's refusal to debate in North Carolina.

From James Taranto's Best of the Web posting from Tuesday, The Obama Quarantine, where he comments on Obama's lack of debate backbone:

Of course, after last week's debate--which turned out to be highly informative--Obama has got to be wishing he had stopped at 20. Given that he seems to have the nomination nearly locked up anyway, it makes tactical sense for him to run out the clock and stay far away from anyone who may ask him a tough question.

But does it make strategic sense? It strikes us that Obama may be setting a trap for himself. Consider the experience of John Kerry in 2004: He won nomination easily, with the media largely buying into his "war hero" story and not asking tough questions. One notable exception was ABC's Charlie Gibson, who almost exactly four years ago confronted Kerry about his shifty behavior vis-à-vis his medals.

Once Kerry was past the convention, the questions that should have been asked much earlier began coming out. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ended up doing the media's job for them. If Obama succeeds in avoiding the tough questions now, someone will end up asking them in the fall. Will he be prepared?

And Charles Krauthammer comments on Obama's strongest supporters, the media, in his Townhall.com article The "Distractions"of Obama's Character:

In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?

What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.

Commie Obama!

Dan Henninger at the WSJ explains why he thinks the Obama nomination is "inevitable".

We agree, which is why we are officially calling our sexy ushanka hat the "COMMIE OBAMA" Rally Cap!

Saturday Afternoon Cigar

A Rocky Patel Edge burned as we posted our "Book Club Addition", "Hillary a Commie?", and "Obama and Guns" posts.

Obama and Guns

If you do not agree that the Second Amendment is what makes the other amendments possible, save yourself some time and stop reading here.

A common discussion between Karl and fellow 'bitter' conservative and Ushanka.us enthusiast, Mickail, is the liberal attack-agenda on gun ownership. Up until now, Karl has tempered Mickail's pessimism with the recent histories of Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 where the gun issue was surrendered at the national debate out of worries it could hurt Democratic voter turnout. Karl thought he saw the same in the 2008 Democratic primaries. But, enough information has emerged to change his opinion.

We are now convinced that an Obama administration will act on gun control, despite his claims to respect "traditions". We still think taxes will co-exist with Iraq as the leading issues in the general election, but we now think the gun issue should share that priority. Here are links to, and quotes from, some recent articles:

April 3 - Michelle Malkin - "Obamessiah: Roll Back Carried Concealed Laws!". Quoting Obama:

I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.

April 17 - David Kopel in the WSJ - "The Democrats and Gun Control".

When the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year to hear a case on the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Mr. Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune: "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional" and that "local communities" should have the ability "to enact common sense laws." Other than Washington, D.C., the only American cities with handgun bans are Chicago and four of its suburbs. As a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against a 2004 bill (which passed overwhelmingly) to give citizens a legal defense against prosecution for violating a local handgun ban if they actually used the firearm for lawful self-defense on their own property.

Mr. Obama's campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment rights to have guns "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one's self, home and family. In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for protection.
---
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs. Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri.
---
A presidential candidate could of course swear devotion to the First Amendment, while declaring that the amendment's purpose is to protect sports reporting and book collecting. And that candidate could still support government lawsuits against publishers, local bans on newspapers, and draconian restrictions on political commentary.

April 19 - Arthur C. Brooks in the WSJ - "Trigger Happy". Data that shows how out of touch Obama and his liberal supporter really are:

34% of American homes have guns,
Poor? Gun owners earn 32% more than non-gun owners,
Bitter? Gun owners: 39% 'very happy' vs. 30% for non-gun owners,
Charitable giving? 83% of gun owners vs 75% non-gun owners,

Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
---
None of this is to dictate what gun policy should be in our nation and its communities, let alone whether gun owners deserve to be happier than those of us without firearms. Guns are an important area of debate about freedom and security, not to mention constitutionality. What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun.

We think this topic should remain at the top of the issues list for the 2008 election. Will we hear Obama commit to gun rights, for defense against criminals AND a tyrannical government, or will we continue to watch him duck and evade? Comments are on.

Hillary a Commie?

DUH!

I doesn't take an article from The New York Sun to convince us Hillary has communist inspirations. Nor would it take anything the left throws at us to convince us otherwise.

We think she'd prefer show-trials of her opponents, the elimination of property rights, and control of the food supplies to control the masses if only she could suspend that pesky constitution. We also think that she has thought long and hard for most of her adult life in finding ways to get as close as possible to these goals as our next president.

In one of Rush Limbaugh's many comparisons to the proposed policies of Hillary (and Obama) to failed policies of Communists around the globe, he mentioned an Huffington Blog Post that led us to the Sun article, "Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer". The blog post asked why the Philadelphia debate explored Obama's past (and current) associations with questionable figures, but not Hillary's. Specifically, her work with Communists and Communist sympathizers. Good question!

It turns out her work with the law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein suggests an active effort on Hillary's part as a law student to intern with the most leftist law firm in existence. It wasn't just the Black Panthers she was helping, although that alone is grounds for expulsion from American politics. The firm also worked on behalf of Huey Newton (of Free Huey! fame) that summer who was charged with killing an Oakland police officer. They succeeded in getting the case dismissed.

A thorough article, with names and interviews of firm partners and associates. One comment from the firm's co-founder and former member of the Communist Party USA, Robert Treuhaft, said it all:

By the time Mrs. Clinton arrived at the Treuhaft firm in 1971, its reputation as a defender of left-wingers and radicals was well established. Indeed, those at the firm assumed that reputation drew the Yale law student in.

"She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm," Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.

Comments are on. Tell us how we are wrong about Hillary.